David, I wouldn't say that there was any agreement that something more succinct than your email was needed. We haven't really discussed that point with any granularity. There was a thought expressed that a more succinct definition might be useful, but not to the exclusion of a more lengthy description or discussion. Given the importance of the term applicable law in the Bylaw, I think that both will be needed, and both of your contributions will be useful in that regard. Greg On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 9:10 AM, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:

Thank you Niels.

And many thanks to the drafting team of Greg, Jorge, Matthew, and Tatiana who have labored long and hard - and at incredible hours of the day and night – on the draft work in progress that is on the agenda.

In that document those four grappled with the term “applicable law” (among many other things) and agreed that something more succinct was needed than my e-mail on the subject provided.

I agree – I wrote that e-mail without fully appreciating that a definition was needed – instead I meant to offer a more detailed explanation of a comment I made on our last call.

So here is a boiled down version of what I wrote that maybe could help the drafting team (noting that nothing is final yet):

The term “applicable law” as used in this context refers to that body of law that binds ICANN at any given time and in any given circumstance. It may be statutes, rules, regulations and the like, as well as decisional orders/rulings of courts having appropriate jurisdiction, that take effect through the power of a legitimate governmental entity. “Applicable law” is changeable over time and can work disparate impacts around the world. While the concept of “applicable law” eludes cataloguing it is ascertainable in the context of a specific question or issue.

David

David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154

-----Original Message----- From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 5:06 AM To: ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda + documents meeting October 11 - 19:00 UTC​

Pardon me, I forgot to attach the slides for tonights call, please find them attached now, as well as the (work in progress) drafting team document.

Best,

Niels

On 10/11/2016 11:00 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:

...

Dear all,

I hope this email finds you well. Please find underneath the proposed agenda for the call of our subgroup on 11 October 19:00 UTC.

Please find also attached the proposed slides as well as the document the Drafting Team consisting of Greg, Tatiana, Matt and Jorge, have been working on this week. You can also find that document here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XFmkzSFh4CuVR7uWWh6-ZUNii4iVd-jQwx 9eZ01CGFw/edit

All your comments and suggestions are of course very welcome.

1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. Analysis and discussion of proposed definition of applicable law by David McAuley 3. Analysis and discussion on new draft FoI document produced by Drafting Team 4. AOB

I'm greatly looking forward to see you all on the call.

Best,

Niels

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital

Article 19 www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

Hi Niels, Nigel: I would like to note a particular request to our intrepid drafting team of Tatiana, Matthew, Jorge, and Greg for today’s call, if possible. It would be interesting to hear their perspectives on the utility of using Google docs at this stage. I have to admit I am struggling with it – and I have just been a reader of this document so far, not a contributor. It seems to me a very useful tool when the number of commenters and comments is manageable but loses its usefulness as those grow. I also admit a preference, probably developed in WS1, for the development of issues on list prior to putting pen to paper for a rough or final draft. The problem might simply be uniquely mine and I will have to deal with it. But as our drafters worked up page after page I wonder if they developed views on this tool at this stage of our work. Thank you David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Tatiana Tropina Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 5:32 AM To: ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda + documents meeting October 11 - 19:00 UTC​ Hi Niels, since the new FoI document proposal is still work in progress, can we perhaps rephrase the agenda item 3 to reflect this? Right now the agenda item sounds like the small team produced the new document, but in fact we are still discussing and drafting - and our points of disagreement actually reflect the general disagreements of the group as a whole. Shall we rather say "3. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the new proposal for FoI" or something like this? Cheers Tanya On 11/10/16 11:00, Niels ten Oever wrote: Dear all, I hope this email finds you well. Please find underneath the proposed agenda for the call of our subgroup on 11 October 19:00 UTC. Please find also attached the proposed slides as well as the document the Drafting Team consisting of Greg, Tatiana, Matt and Jorge, have been working on this week. You can also find that document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XFmkzSFh4CuVR7uWWh6-ZUNii4iVd-jQwx9eZ01C... All your comments and suggestions are of course very welcome. 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. Analysis and discussion of proposed definition of applicable law by David McAuley 3. Analysis and discussion on new draft FoI document produced by Drafting Team 4. AOB I'm greatly looking forward to see you all on the call. Best, Niels _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

Dear all, Thank you very much for your inputs. Based on your comments I made a new version of tonights agenda and amended the slides in line with that as well. Please find them underneath and attached. 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. Discussion on Working Methods 3. Analysis and discussion of proposed definition of applicable law 4. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the new proposal for FoI 5. AOB Best, Niels On 10/11/2016 03:27 PM, McAuley, David wrote:

Hi Niels, Nigel:

I would like to note a particular request to our intrepid drafting team of Tatiana, Matthew, Jorge, and Greg for today’s call, if possible.

It would be interesting to hear their perspectives on the utility of using Google docs at this stage. I have to admit I am struggling with it – and I have just been a reader of this document so far, not a contributor.

It seems to me a very useful tool when the number of commenters and comments is manageable but loses its usefulness as those grow.

I also admit a preference, probably developed in WS1, for the development of issues on list prior to putting pen to paper for a rough or final draft.

The problem might simply be uniquely mine and I will have to deal with it. But as our drafters worked up page after page I wonder if they developed views on this tool at this stage of our work.

Thank you

David

David McAuley

International Policy Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154

*From:*ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Dr. Tatiana Tropina *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 5:32 AM *To:* ws2-hr@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda + documents meeting October 11 - 19:00 UTC​

Hi Niels,

since the new FoI document proposal is still work in progress, can we perhaps rephrase the agenda item 3 to reflect this? Right now the agenda item sounds like the small team produced the new document, but in fact we are still discussing and drafting - and our points of disagreement actually reflect the general disagreements of the group as a whole. Shall we rather say "3. Analysis and discussion on the progress of the drafting team working on the new proposal for FoI" or something like this?

Cheers

Tanya

On 11/10/16 11:00, Niels ten Oever wrote:

Dear all,

I hope this email finds you well. Please find underneath the proposed

agenda for the call of our subgroup on 11 October 19:00 UTC.

Please find also attached the proposed slides as well as the document

the Drafting Team consisting of Greg, Tatiana, Matt and Jorge, have been

working on this week. You can also find that document here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XFmkzSFh4CuVR7uWWh6-ZUNii4iVd-jQwx9eZ01C...

All your comments and suggestions are of course very welcome.

1. Administrivia

Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc

2. Analysis and discussion of proposed definition of applicable law by

David McAuley

3. Analysis and discussion on new draft FoI document produced by

Drafting Team

4. AOB

I'm greatly looking forward to see you all on the call.

Best,

Niels

_______________________________________________

Ws2-hr mailing list

Ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9